Lawsuit accuses Otter.ai of secretly recording 25M users for AI training

A federal class-action lawsuit filed against Otter.ai accuses the popular AI transcription service of secretly recording and processing millions of users’ private conversations without proper consent to train its artificial intelligence systems. The suit, filed in California federal court, alleges that Otter’s default settings allow it to record virtual meetings without alerting all participants, potentially violating state and federal privacy and wiretapping laws.

What you should know: The lawsuit centers on Otter Notebook’s automatic recording capabilities during virtual meetings across major platforms.

• Plaintiff Justin Brewer of San Jacinto, California claims his privacy was “severely invaded” when Otter secretly recorded a confidential conversation.
• The service can transcribe real-time conversations on Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams, but allegedly fails to obtain consent from all meeting participants.
• Otter processes data from 25 million users and has recorded over 1 billion meetings since 2016.

How the alleged privacy violations work: Otter’s integration with workplace calendars can trigger automatic recordings without explicit participant consent.

• When someone with an Otter account joins a virtual meeting, the software typically asks the meeting host for permission to record but doesn’t ask other participants by default.
• If a meeting host has integrated their calendar accounts with Otter, the “Otter Notetaker” assistant may join meetings without obtaining consent from any participant, including the host.
• The lawsuit alleges this allows Otter to “deceptively and surreptitiously” record conversations for AI training purposes.

The company’s defense: Otter’s privacy policy states it receives “explicit permission” from users to train its systems on meeting transcripts.

• Users must check a box granting Otter and third parties permission to use private conversations “for training and product improvement purposes.”
• The company claims audio fed into its machine learning systems is “de-identified” to anonymize the data.
• However, the lawsuit argues Otter provides no public explanation of its de-identification process and questions its effectiveness.

Real-world consequences: Users have reported serious privacy breaches and business disruptions from Otter’s recording practices.

• An AI researcher said Otter recorded a Zoom meeting with investors and shared transcription of “intimate, confidential details” discussed after he left, ultimately killing a business deal.
• Politico’s China correspondent raised concerns about interviewing a Uyghur human rights activist using Otter, fearing the Chinese government could attempt to access raw transcriptions.
• Reddit users have complained about Otter automatically joining meetings through calendar integrations and recording without consent.

Legal implications: The lawsuit seeks to represent California users who had conversations unknowingly shared with Otter for financial gain.

• The suit claims violations of state and federal privacy and wiretap laws.
• It challenges Otter’s ability to effectively anonymize data, stating “upon information and belief, Otter’s deidentification process does not remove confidential information or guarantee speaker anonymity.”
• Neither Brewer’s legal team nor Otter responded to requests for comment about the litigation.